Comic books/Tintin SC 1st series (1960-1969, cloth spine)41 messages

I see that for the HC 1st edition series a numbering has been chosen (01.1) etc. instead of (1.1) so that the albums sort properly. In the SC series, album 1673805 is the only exception - it currently sorts not tasty.

A bit of fun in the margin, but it doesn't feel quite right - the question then is: adjust the numbering of the entire album series for 1 album? Or only for the sun temple?

edit: is a different '0' than with the HCs of course - don't really know if the sorting is done properly ... so e.g. (3.01) instead of (3.1 ) as it now says ...

24338 got number 2.4a, but should be 2.5a in my opinion (back A62I). Danel Loos, so he is not in sight in Tintin? 1658475 would then be number 2.4a instead of 2.4b?

Feel lonely in this thread: P 24338 is incorrect in numbering, but it's frozen so I can't change it. Already sent a message to the administrators and emailed the person who added "release of DANEL LOOS" (seems strong to me, but I am very curious) but no response so far.

No administrator who has anything to do with this can? Thanks in advance!

email arco once

In the meantime, contact an administrator.

24338 has been provided with pictures by me and I have no Danel Loos in my copy, it does have dark blue endpapers and according to in sight catalog 2.5.

back of A62I

I have asked some collectors who have this album in their collection if they want to check if they have a Danel Loos release.

@ Jilles: dark blue bracts would be remarkable, 2.5 is basically one with light blue bracts? Otherwise it should be 1.5 (and it won't be in 'Tint in sight').

I misread it in the Ottens. It is also the only cloth-backed sc I have.

Ah, too bad - would have been a discovery ;-)

At the auction they believe they have discovered a new sc 1st edition, see

http://forum.catawiki.nl/forums/33-nieuws/topics/8665-kijkdagen-veilingen?page = 24 # posts-136273

The item has not been added to the catalog by the way.

If an administrator wants to say something about that, please - I am not believed I will get it idea.

. @ Rik Mooren,

The album that was auctioned dates from 1960, and is a variant on the first edition because of the light blue endpapers instead of the dark blue ones. (for an explanation of this, see p 158 of Tintin in sight) and the album is really rare!

Argumentation:

• This back cover of the album is only used in 1960 (Nine songs Kwik and Flupke) From 1962 the film “Gulden Vlies” is added. So the album dates from 1960 or 1961
• The adventures of ... are all framed . This is only used until 1961, but those from 1961 are with 10 songs from Kwik and Flupke . After that, no more framework. So only 1960 remains as the only option.
• Language list: see “Tintin Backwards”. To quote: The books with the back cover 1960 and 1961 usually do not have a language list. Exception: “De Zonnetempel” with 1960's back. Namely: light blue endpapers and Language list: K14.A1. (ps: this matches list 5 from "Tintin in sight". The normal back cover of this book is 62 II!

@Jodieke

I don't think I made any other claims. Other than that this is an album with a language list of 14 languages and a back cover from 1960.

The language list of 14 languages dates from 1963 at the sun temple, so you can actually say that this album has a book block from 1963 and a back cover from 1960.

It would not surprise me personally that this is actually part of the 1963 plot, but that a leftover lot of covers has been used.

As far as I know, Tintin was not yet published in 14 languages in 1960 ..

The topic of the discussion was whether this was a first edition of a reissue or a reprint.

The auctioned sun temple is a reprint. It is a variant of this edition.

The first edition of a reissue can be found here . The difference is really in the colophon as you can see from page 159 in Tintin in sight.

I don't dispute the rarity of the album. I expect there will be fewer copies of this album because it is made up of a leftover lot.

edit: According to the Catawiki rules of the game, we only have 1 first edition. For the Sun Temple, this is the 1949 edition ...

@Rik

Thanks for the quick response, Rik!

Kind regards,

Jodieke

Ooit heb ik bij 1673761 een voorbeeld van lichtblauwe schutbladen toegevoegd, enkel en alleen omdat het voor particulieren die albums aanboden en de catalogus niet hadden moeilijk was onderscheid te maken tussen dit album met achterkant A60 en de versie met donkerblauwe schutbladen.

Tot nu toe heeft Catawiki de codering van Ottens gevolgd en geen onderscheid gemaakt tussen de verschillende varianten lichtblauwe schutbladen; gezien de opmerkingen (en nu ook wijzigingen) van Stripsmagazijn bij dit album is hij van mening dat er wel onderscheid gemaakt moet worden tussen de verschillende varianten. (Op basis waarvan je dan zeker weet dat het een andere 'druk' is, of welke variant ouder is, dat snap ik nog niet, maar dat kan iemand dan vast uitleggen?)

Kan ook natuurlijk, varianten toevoegen in Catawiki, als de kenners het daar over eens zijn (ik ben echt geen kuifje-kenner, i.t.t. wat sommigen beweerden, lees alleen Ottens goed door en heb slechts enkele tientallen albums HC en SC in de verzameling ;-) , maar zolang daar nog niet toe is besloten lijkt het mij niet wenselijk dat bij 1673761 en anders SC's linnen rug waar een 3e afbeelding als voorbeeld is toegevoegd een schutblad dat toevallig wordt getoond als dwingend voor alle verzamelaars die er aan hangen wordt genomen: bijvoorbeeld het pas geveilde album kan iemand dan niet kwijt in zijn verzameling.

Andere mogelijkheid is om de 3e afbeelding weer weg te halen, want nu wekt het blijkbaar verwarring bij mensen (terwijl het als verduidelijking was bedoeld...). In de tussentijd heb ik bij de "bijzonderheden" van dit album de tekst van Stripsmagazijn weer verwijderd...

I once added an example of light blue endpapers to 1673761 , solely because it was difficult for individuals who offered albums and did not have the catalog to distinguish between this album with A60 back cover and the version with dark blue endpapers.

Until now, Catawiki has followed Ottens' coding and has not made a distinction between the different variants of light blue endpapers; given the comments (and now also changes) from Stripsmagazijn on this album, he believes that a distinction should be made between the different variants. (On the basis of which you know for sure that it is a different 'pressure', or which variant is older, I don't understand that yet, but someone can probably explain that?)

Of course you can also add variants in Catawiki, if the connoisseurs agree (I'm really not a Tintin connoisseur, contrary to what some have claimed, only read Ottens carefully and only have a few dozen albums HC and SC in the collection ;- ), but as long as this has not yet been decided, it does not seem desirable to me that with 1673761 and otherwise SC's linen spine where a 3rd image has been added as an example, a flyleaf that happens to be shown as mandatory for all collectors hanging on it is taken: for example the newly auctioned album cannot be placed in someone's collection.

Another possibility is to remove the 3rd image again, because now it apparently confuses people (while it was meant as a clarification...). In the meantime I have removed the text of Stripsmagazijn from the "details" of this album...

Let's talk about the rarity of the light blue versus the dark blue bracts sun temple: although both are undoubtedly rare (certainly in good condition) I have followed them on Catawiki for a long time and based on that offer, the dark blue version seems much rarer. A problem with this is that many people offer their album with the dark blue bracts, repeatedly saying that it really is a version with dark blue bracts, but then it turns out to be a version with light blue bracts ...

I wouldn't be surprised if all the current offerings in the dark blue version are not a correct offer, but not so busy at the moment.

Another cover page in terms of color or image is indeed a variant in Catawiki, so if a cover page is shown in position 3, then the item is the book with THAT cover page. So I fully agree with the change that Stripsmagazijn had made. Everywhere in Catawiki it works that you hang yourself exactly on the item you have in your possession. There is no light in that.

By the way, we do not follow Ottens explicitly, we only use his numbering to avoid reinventing the wheel twice.

Regarding color determination: that is difficult, because what one finds dark, another finds less dark. And one's screen is brighter than the other, so even with an example it remains difficult if you do not see both variants physically next to each other. Actually similar to someone who enters a book with the text under Details: thin paper. How can you know which version you have if you cannot feel the version with thicker paper?

The Tintin SC series linen spine is a complex series. Complex because the albums are assembled from a number of separate elements (spine, covers, endpapers, book block). In addition, there are several variations of these separate elements. The number of combinations to be made is therefore very large.

Stripsmagazijn's estimate that 400 different albums have been released in this series is, in my opinion, a realistic estimate. This equates to an average of 20 versions per album.

The endpapers are known to be used in 3 colors and that there are 4 different variants per color.

I hope that the flyleaves of 1673761 , which if fig 3 are added, actually belong to this album and not, as an example, come from another album.

If they come from another album, then fig 3 has to go without a doubt because it is important, especially with so many variants, that the existence of that variant is demonstrated.

edit: Arco was just before me :-)

Seven seconds, call that something ... Do you know what you can do in seven seconds?

Obviously image 3 comes from this album itself - as long as I will be on Catawiki again ;-) Only do I have to replace the front and back as well, I think?

I understand how it is is used throughout Catawiki and in hindsight I should not have added image 3 at the time - no matter how well the intention may be (it certainly helped people). Out of my mind - there are also other SC linen backs with a picture 3 as an example (not mine); they will have to be adjusted.

If we do this consistently, it will yield a lot of new variants (and many collectors who have to check which version they have in their possession - heheh ;-)

And I think I also wrote "the coding of Ottens", not literally Ottens, because of that coding new prints / variants have already been added in Catawiki.

Maybe for the moment wherever that happens. is the 3rd image delete? I don't know when everyone will have time to check their copies and add new variants - it will be a bit of a job I think ...

Does not seem useful at all to remove image 3 everywhere, because that makes the chance that we will ever get the variants in Catawiki.

Good point, you're right. Only inform all collectors who depend on it? The 3rd images were added later, hence.

The 3 colors are gray, light blue and dark blue.

The gray bracts did not appear until 1963 and from that moment on they are the only color used. (Thanks to Peter Ottens who figured it out and described all of this in Tintin in sight)

The 4 variants are related to the images on the endpapers. Often the figure at the top right of the flyleaf is used to indicate the variant.

Good point, you're right. Only inform all collectors who depend on it? The 3rd images were added later, hence.

The collectors will not be informed until a second version of the same edition is placed.

At that moment we can refer to multiple variants. Until then, it is not at all certain whether multiple variants exist.